Dublin Bus Network Review

CIE

ILBondo wrote: »

I am absolutely aghast at this save the 19 campaign, firstly where the 19 originated on the south side is within walking distance of several high frequency routes such as the 79, 40, 13, 123. This is without mentioning the proximity of the Luas or the fact that that 68, operates the very much the same route as the old 19 from inchicore to the city- its the customers from Clondalkin/Newcastle that i feel sorry for there having to undergo such a detour. On the northside much of the old 19 route is very much subsumed into the 9 or the 83 again two very high frequency routes. The people complaining about the loss of 19 should appreciate that the bus service available to them is better than most places in Dublin let alone the country. If you want locations that have been drained of bus services, look at city west, firhouse/ballycullen, sandyford, whitechurch, or swords, particularily in the case of the latter it makes the 19 users complaints look insignificant.

The appeal to austerity is not a valid argument, with all due respect.

Now what's to stop a private operator taking over the former operations of the 19...? Why must Ireland wait for the Almighty State? Same goes for other locations that lost state-run bus services. Time to get the state out of it.

ILBondo

Austerity or no austerity, dublin bus needs to cut down on duplication where it exists (19 route is a classic example) and focus resources on areas that are genuinely lacking in bus services. I am against any privatisation of Dublin Bus but that should not be an argument against change or an argument in favour of poor decisions by Dub bus management..

KD345

CIE wrote: »

The appeal to austerity is not a valid argument, with all due respect.

Now what's to stop a private operator taking over the former operations of the 19...? Why must Ireland wait for the Almighty State? Same goes for other locations that lost state-run bus services. Time to get the state out of it.

You seriously think a private operator would run the old 19 route?

Again, where are you having trouble boarding buses on the 9 or 83 that are "full"? Where is the evidence that former Route 19 passengers have switched to using their car?

A2000

I still think the ideal solution here was for 123 to run via keeper road herberton rd rialto and into sat james's hospital. 122 to run from mourne rd suir road and via bulfin estate keeping the frequency and the old route 19 to city and the cross city aspect of the route as far as phibsborough anyway. this way the 68 passengers would not have to endure the longer route and all areas of the prior routes would be covered. In saying that I agree that the 19 was a waste of resources but if they were to retain a service in Bulfin then 122 might have been the better option.

Alternatively 17 could have been extended to bulfin to create a shuttle to 122 at rialto.

Bazzer2

A2000 wrote: »

I still think the ideal solution here was for 123 to run via keeper road herberton rd rialto and into sat james's hospital. 122 to run from mourne rd suir road and via bulfin estate keeping the frequency and the old route 19 to city and the cross city aspect of the route as far as phibsborough anyway. this way the 68 passengers would not have to endure the longer route and all areas of the prior routes would be covered. In saying that I agree that the 19 was a waste of resources but if they were to retain a service in Bulfin then 122 might have been the better option.

Alternatively 17 could have been extended to bulfin to create a shuttle to 122 at rialto.

Totally agree with those ideas.

Ironically, drivers on the then 19 route were told not to keep their bus engines running if laying over at Bulfin Road..... due to complaints from residents!

CIE

KD345 wrote: »

You seriously think a private operator would run the old 19 route?

Why not? Did anyone ask them? I'd bet that if it were permitted for a number of private bus operators to give running the traditional 19 route out of the farebox a go, they would do it and not turn a loss. Even before its surreptitious cancellation, it was a frequent route and not without reason.

KD345 wrote: »

Again, where are you having trouble boarding buses on the 9 or 83 that are "full"? Where is the evidence that former Route 19 passengers have switched to using their car?

I see you're trying to play detective on this issue. And IIRC, one of the chief complaints from the Glasnevin folk is the low car ownership and the unilateral removal of traditional bus routes that have stood for several decades in its face. (It's actually highly abnormal for traditional bus routes to be radically altered. It was tried in the 1990s and failed for the most part, which led to reversions.)

And if a bus is full, then there's no room to get on it. I've tried and given up, even when the driver was nice enough to stop and allow me to make the attempt; several times in several different cities, AAMOF. I'm a human, not a sardine. The "bus full" sign does need to be put back onto buses sometimes.

ilbondo wrote: »

Austerity or no austerity, dublin bus needs to cut down on duplication where it exists (19 route is a classic example) and focus resources on areas that are genuinely lacking in bus services. I am against any privatisation of Dublin Bus but that should not be an argument against change or an argument in favour of poor decisions by Dub bus management

Where is the reasoning for "cut(ting) down on duplication"? Corridors do have branches, and trying to eliminate what is perceived as "duplication" for its own sake has no rhyme or reason behind it. Route 19 is not a "classic example" of anything; no other bus served the upper half of Ballygall Road East, Beneavin Road, Tolka Estate, or (when the 20/B was cancelled on the south side) provided service between the city centre and Rialto/Bulfin Road. You can't have a single route that will serve its unique corridor only; there is no efficiency to that. (The Navan Road corridor actually gained duplicate routes as a result of Network Direct.)

BTW, based on the argument against "duplication", then the 150 should have been altered to run via Francis Street/Meath Street instead of duplicating operation via Werburgh Street, Bride Street, Kevin Street and Cork Street that routes such as the 27, 56A and 77A already run, when the 121 was withdrawn, yes? (At least they kept the operation via St. Thomas' Road and O'Donovan Road; they were going to run it via Clanbrassil Street and South Circular Road originally, but that would have been more duplication of other routes.)

There's no valid argument against privatisation, but there is a host of arguments against state operation. If an area is "genuinely lacking in bus services", then which would be able to generate the fastest response, a private operator with its own capital on hand...or the state, who would need to either get a chunk of tax money or have borrowing authorised by the government to fund startup, never mind jump through regulatory and legislative hoops of its own creation?

Was on a 40 this afternoon, operated by VG24. While on the route I saw two other VGs on the 40 as well, Harristown seem to be getting the best ones out! A sign in the drivers cab shows the height of the bus to be 14'5" so I found it a bit amusing to see the bus head under the Sarsfield Road rail bridge which has a head height of 14'4" - I'd assume they checked?

AlekSmart

Karsini wrote: »

A sign in the drivers cab shows the height of the bus to be 14'5" so I found it a bit amusing to see the bus head under the Sarsfield Road rail bridge which has a head height of 14'4" - I'd assume they checked?

Did you make it out the other end.... ?

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

Did you make it out the other end.... ?

Yeah it was fine, though I was wondering if it would be!

KD345

CIE wrote: »

Why not? Did anyone ask them? I'd bet that if it were permitted for a number of private bus operators to give running the traditional 19 route out of the farebox a go, they would do it and not turn a loss. Even before its surreptitious cancellation, it was a frequent route and not without reason.

No sensible private operator would operate the 19 in it's former state. It duplicated too many high frequency routes and simply didn't carry enough passengers.

CIE wrote: »

I see you're trying to play detective on this issue. And IIRC, one of the chief complaints from the Glasnevin folk is the low car ownership and the unilateral removal of traditional bus routes that have stood for several decades in its face. (It's actually highly abnormal for traditional bus routes to be radically altered. It was tried in the 1990s and failed for the most part, which led to reversions.)

And if a bus is full, then there's no room to get on it. I've tried and given up, even when the driver was nice enough to stop and allow me to make the attempt; several times in several different cities, AAMOF. I'm a human, not a sardine. The "bus full" sign does need to be put back onto buses sometimes.

This was what you said earlier in this thread...

the buses that are full now due to passengers being forced onto different routes thanks to route cuts and service cuts will become steadily less full when people get sick of the cuts and migrate back to cars.

The 9 and 83 are not full. They are not leaving people behind. Each route carries good loadings. You have provided no evidence of anybody migrating back to their car. Can I ask you where you specifically had a bus pass you by on either route? There is no section of the old 19 route that is left without a bus or a very short walk to a bus stop.

CIE wrote: »

Where is the reasoning for "cut(ting) down on duplication"?

There is absolutely no sense whatsoever to have the 19 and 122 duplicate each other between O'Connell Street and Rialto. With the severe financial pressure the company is under things like this cannot continue. The 122 can cope perfectly well with the passengers of both routes. Again, buses are not full and are not leaving passengers behind.

(It's actually highly abnormal for traditional bus routes to be radically altered. It was tried in the 1990s and failed for the most part, which led to reversions.)

Are you suggesting Dublin Bus should never change any of it's routes? I see nothing "abnormal" about removing a route where passenger levels are low and the areas are served by other high frequency routes. I remember the 19s in the 1980s and 1990s and they were busy routes and in demand, but the 19 operating up until August 2011 was in no way comparable. To suggest Dublin Bus should just ignore this because it's "highly abnormal" is ridiculous. I understand from your posts you have a fondness for old bus routes, but I'm baffled at how you're trying to justify there is enough demand for the return of the 19.

There are many areas of Dublin which have good reason to complain about the reduction in their service, not those on the 19.

CIE

KD345 wrote: »

No sensible private operator would operate the 19 in it's former state. It duplicated too many high frequency routes and simply didn't carry enough passengers

And your evidence is...what? Never mind your use of loaded terms ("sensible" private operator; are you a private bus operator? if not, then I have to presume that you don't know anything about running a bus...I don't myself, but then again, I don't pretend to have knowledge of what a private bus operator would know, as you herein claim, "sensible" or no).

KD345 wrote: »

The 9 and 83 are not full. They are not leaving people behind. Each route carries good loadings. You have provided no evidence of anybody migrating back to their car. Can I ask you where you specifically had a bus pass you by on either route? There is no section of the old 19 route that is left without a bus or a very short walk to a bus stop

I see no evidence out of you other than rhetorical statements; not even anecdotal. Meanwhile, you have people moved to go out to the ECHR of all bodies in protest over this; can't be one hundred percent frivolity to have stirred that much of an organised reaction.

On top of that, if the 9 and 83 really aren't that full, that means that people are indeed eschewing them in favour of other forms of transport, and the people of Glasnevin have had to resort to indebtedness in order to avail of motorcars...which isn't the intent of Network Direct, IINM; the presumption has to be that the now-unserved former bus passengers would get up and walk about a kilometre or so out of their way to use the revised services, yes? which would consequently fill the buses up on these routes, again yes?

KD345 wrote: »

There is absolutely no sense whatsoever to have the 19 and 122 duplicate each other between O'Connell Street and Rialto. With the severe financial pressure the company is under things like this cannot continue. The 122 can cope perfectly well with the passengers of both routes. Again, buses are not full and are not leaving passengers behind

More rhetorical claims, and a private operation cannot possibly put additional "severe financial pressure" on Dublin Bus, being independent of it.

But back to the question of "severe financial pressure": DB have engaged in some very large capital purchases for new fleets of buses, have they not? as well as going mad withdrawing other types of buses that were still viable and had a number of operational years left in them? Why would they do that when they already knew what manner of "recommendations" were part of ND, whether ill-advised or well-advised (because there is a mix of both, albeit not well-balanced), and that toning down the "financial pressure" may have preserved many of the routes?

KD345 wrote: »

Are you suggesting Dublin Bus should never change any of it's routes? I see nothing "abnormal" about removing a route where passenger levels are low and the areas are served by other high frequency routes. I remember the 19s in the 1980s and 1990s and they were busy routes and in demand, but the 19 operating up until August 2011 was in no way comparable. To suggest Dublin Bus should just ignore this because it's "highly abnormal" is ridiculous. I understand from your posts you have a fondness for old bus routes, but I'm baffled at how you're trying to justify there is enough demand for the return of the 19.

There are many areas of Dublin which have good reason to complain about the reduction in their service, not those on the 19

Stop presuming to speak for such people. You can only speak for yourself. And it seems that a lot of things baffle you, such as the concept of fully-private city bus operation. Much of the complaints about ND centre around there being a lot of removals of routes where useage was actually not low; and frankly, that was happening pre-ND (e.g. route 45, to induce higher DART useage as well as bump up the numbers of the re-routed 145).

And evidently, the 122's re-routing into Rialto could not assuage all the demand for bus service to/from the city centre along the SCR corridor that remained after the withdrawal of the 19; otherwise, the 68, whose service ND had threatened to sever from the city centre and have operate between Red Cow and Newcastle, instead was re-routed via Bulfin Road and the SCR with the retention of service to/from the city centre. That tells a different tale from what you are telling herein, even to the point of debunking your claims. As do the voices that threaten to bring a case to the ECHR. And dismissing things you disagree with as "ridiculous" borders on argumentum ad hominem (ridicule is part of said fallacy).

KD345

CIE wrote: »

And your evidence is...what? Never mind your use of loaded terms ("sensible" private operator; are you a private bus operator? if not, then I have to presume that you don't know anything about running a bus...I don't myself, but then again, I don't pretend to have knowledge of what a private bus operator would know, as you herein claim, "sensible" or no).

Like yourself, I know absolutely nothing about running a bus service, but you really don't need a degree in economics to know that running empty buses across a city on a route already served is not a good business plan. I have no evidence of whether people are switching to cars or not, but the difference is I'm not making a claim that they are.

CIE wrote: »

I see no evidence out of you other than rhetorical statements; not even anecdotal.

I live on the 83 route. I use the service a lot and would see buses operating it throughout the day. I have family living close to the old 19 route and travel that direction by bus a few times a week. I have first hand experience of these routes which I what I base my claims on.

I ask you again, where are you having trouble boarding these "full buses" on the 9 or 83 which you claim are forcing people to cars?

CIE wrote: »

Meanwhile, you have people moved to go out to the ECHR of all bodies in protest over this; can't be one hundred percent frivolity to have stirred that much of an organised reaction.

Earlier in this thread you claimed what these people were doing was "hilarious" and "a joke". Now it seems you're using this case to try strengthen your argument?

CIE wrote: »

On top of that, if the 9 and 83 really aren't that full, that means that people are indeed eschewing them in favour of other forms of transport, and the people of Glasnevin have had to resort to indebtedness in order to avail of motorcars...which isn't the intent of Network Direct, IINM; the presumption has to be that the now-unserved former bus passengers would get up and walk about a kilometre or so out of their way to use the revised services, yes? which would consequently fill the buses up on these routes, again yes?
More rhetorical claims, and a private operation cannot possibly put additional "severe financial pressure" on Dublin Bus, being independent of it.

But the old 19, 19A and 83 were never routes which were full to the point of leaving passengers behind. Between the three routes, the passengers numbers could easily be accommodate onto two. Again, you claim passengers "had to resort to motorcar" which you have no evidence of. Anybody who travelled by bus in Glasnevin can still do so, they may have to walk a very short distance to a bus stop (like many housing estates) but their service is still there.

CIE wrote: »

But back to the question of "severe financial pressure": DB have engaged in some very large capital purchases for new fleets of buses, have they not? as well as going mad withdrawing other types of buses that were still viable and had a number of operational years left in them? Why would they do that when they already knew what manner of "recommendations" were part of ND, whether ill-advised or well-advised (because there is a mix of both, albeit not well-balanced), and that toning down the "financial pressure" may have preserved many of the routes?

I believe the purchase of new buses lies with the NTA who last week announced their commitment to updating the fleet. My understanding is that Dublin Bus is aims to have a 100% low floor fleet which will require new low floor vehicles.

CIE wrote: »

Stop presuming to speak for such people. You can only speak for yourself. And it seems that a lot of things baffle you, such as the concept of fully-private city bus operation.

Can you point out where I'm baffled by the "concept of full-privatised city bus operation"?

But yes, I am baffled at your belief that...

It's actually highly abnormal for traditional bus routes to be radically altered. It was tried in the 1990s and failed for the most part, which led to reversions.

Bus routes need to change and develop, in the same way the city has developed. As I already mentioned, the 19 running until August 2011 was a shadow of what it was in the 80s and 90s. People were not using it, and were availing of other bus routes along the route. The reality is Dublin Bus doesn't have the cash to allow these kind of routes to continue.

And evidently, the 122's re-routing into Rialto could not assuage all the demand for bus service to/from the city centre along the SCR corridor that remained after the withdrawal of the 19; otherwise, the 68, whose service ND had threatened to sever from the city centre and have operate between Red Cow and Newcastle, instead was re-routed via Bulfin Road and the SCR with the retention of service to/from the city centre.

As has been well discussed here, the introduction of the 68 through Bulfin Estate was to please residents who demanded a bus run on their road. I still think it was the wrong decision considering the proximity of Bulfin to other bus routes.

And dismissing things you disagree with as "ridiculous" borders on argumentum ad hominem (ridicule is part of said fallacy).

Finally, if I think something is ridiculous then I will say it. The belief that it's abnormal to change a traditional bus route which is no longer used is ridiculous to me. That's my opinion, I'm sorry you felt the need to comment on it, but in the same way you agree some things things are "a joke", I too will express my views here.

dazberry

ILBondo wrote: »

I am absolutely aghast at this save the 19 campaign, firstly where the 19 originated on the south side is within walking distance of several high frequency routes such as the 79, 40, 13, 123. This is without mentioning the proximity of the Luas or the fact that that 68, operates the very much the same route as the old 19 from inchicore to the city- its the customers from Clondalkin/Newcastle that i feel sorry for there having to undergo such a detour.

I am absolutely aghast at the opinions that come out about the 19 campaign with little understanding of the route itself or why the campaign was instigated, and putting the maps and crayons away have any of the posters typical of the post above actually ever set foot on a 19 at all???

I was a fair weather 19 user, in that there were times I used it 3 days a week, times I used it only at weekends. I do not live in the Bulfin estate, I live about a mile away. The whole thing about the 19 was that it served the SCR, and I often found it much quicker to walk down to the 19 terminus and use the service if I wanted to access the SCR, Leonards Corner, Kelly's Corner and ultimately Rathmines or Ranelagh, the later I could do in 35 minutes including the 15 minutes walk at the start. I did that journey yesterday via the city center (69 and 11) and it took 65 minutes (68 times didn't suit).

Rolling back a bit, when the network direct changes were announced for the 19, the severing of the end of the route was never mentioned, it was hidden in the detail of the changes. I tried to clarify this with nwd and like others was completely ignored. I didn't make the community roadshow, but the feedback that came back was pretty poor on the DB front, with basically the opinion of having the 123 being good enough. So from the get-go, DB really had people's back up.

I was hoping that there was some way to retain some service via the SCR, so made it my business to attend the first meeting in St Michaels Parish hall. It was an eye opener to see the amount of elderly there, but what struck was the lack of mainstream political representation, so you had a lot of angry old people, and a lot of socialists, so ultimately you weren't ever going to get a lot of compromise. Disappointing when you realise that the likes of the local FG representive who had initially signaled the removal a year prior became "polite but not really interested" after gaining office...

At this point both the 68 and 69 where marked as being shuttle buses to the Red Cow, but even at that early stage there was mention of possibly running the 68 via the SCR. Now, given that you had 2 to 3 buses an hour from a terminus morphing into an at best (68a aside) a once per hour route from Newcastle, I can understand how people felt that it wasn't a runner, having no idea when they'd show up and with long waiting times in between. Blaming the 19 campaign for the new 68 routing is at best disingenuous.

The loadings on the 19 were never fully disclosed either, there were mixed messages, ranging from good enough to poor depending on what message DB wanted to convey. My gut feeling was that the loads weren't good enough outside peak hours to justify the number of buses on the route, but at the same time weren't necessarily bad enough to justify culling the route completely - had other factors not been at play.

Personally I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I've a lot of respect for the work that was done behind the scenes by the likes of Joan Collins (the TD, not the actress), given the complete disappearance of any mainstream political interest, but at the same time felt that there was little interest in compromise. Having said that compromise is a two way street and I've never had to sit down and deal with DB either and DBs approach was disgraceful for the start.

The 68 is a mixed bag, it suits me a bit better in that I don't have to walk all the way down the the old 19 terminus now, but the timetable is poor, notably at weekends, and if I was an elderly person relaying on it and not having RTPI I'd not be a happy camper. Well it is what it is, better then nothing I guess.

D.

Dodge

I used to use the 19 twice a day Monday- Friday from Bulfin road to camden street (and return).

No more than 5-10 people would ever get on the bus between Bulfin road and South Circular Road, and the same in the evenigs for people getting off.

The very handy thign about it was having the terminus at Bulfin Road and knowing its departure time. New 68/68a departure times didn't suit. In the early evenings, it went from being a 20 minute service to a 30 minute service and early on, some of the 68a services didn't appear.

Now, I've moved jobs and I get the equally infuriating 13 or 40

BenShermin

After one week in operation my mother sumed up the absolute disgrace that is the new route 40 in one sentence; " it's like back in the 1990s where buses were passing you by full"!

I've lodged both an E-mail and a letter of complaint to Dublin Bus on how their new route 40 has treated my parents like **** over the last few days, good people who are fare paying passengers all their lives!!

A2000

Delays of almost an hour on the 40 in both directions tonight as there were last friday night northbound. Ridiculous as its late nite shopping. There is also a gap in southbound services tru ballyfermot towards liffey valley in the mornings. The result is that 76 has come into its own bringing people to work in liffey valley from ballyfermot meaning they have to walk in from coldcut road due to unreliability of the 40. Also heavy loads on 76 during the day due to long gaps on 40 and then 2 coming together. The service seems to worsen as each day goes by. Emails to db and network direct have gone unanswered. Its now 9pm and there are 3 40's due in the next 12 minutes at o'connell st southbound.

nommm

On the subject on the Save the 19 Campaign. I feel like the replacement of these service with the 83 would have worked if DB had actually done what was promised. But often I find the buses are not coming at the frequency promised (Several times I've waited over half an hour for a bus around 8am and not only that the bus that actually does arrive is full to capacity) and as I said in the thread before, I've experienced DB drivers 'skipping' my bus stop for their own convenience. I've actually started walking down to the bus stop 20 mins down the road from me as that way I'm guaranteed to get a bus as 4 buses come to the bus stop. Th only problem with this is that I and others like me are probably reducing the amount of passengers on the 83 and thus it may lead to more cuts in the service.

thomasj

Changes to the city centre routing of routes 25/a/b in the city centre baggot street

Routes 25, 25a, and 25b Routing Change Friday, November 25, 2011

Dublin Bus is pleased to announce that from Sunday 4th December 2011 Routes 25, 25a, and 25b will operate from Merrion Square towards Lucan/Adamstown via Baggot Street Lower and Pembroke Street. They will no longer serve bus stopno. 909 on Leeson Street Lower. The nearest alternative stop is bus stop no. 786, Leeson Street Lower.

Routes 25, 25a, and 25b will also now serve bus stop no. 785 (Lower Pembroke Street).

This change will significantly improve journey times for customers and improve the consistency of intervals between services.

Customers can also get updates on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @dublinbusnews or call our customer service line on (01) 8734222, lines open from 08:30 - 18:00hrs(Monday to Saturday excluding bank holidays).

thomasj

A vt just passed me by displaying "entering service" in all its glory.

Thats worse than the "sorry not in service" display

Who cares if its "entering service"? Certainly not the people who cant board it!

dazberry

BenShermin wrote: »

After one week in operation my mother sumed up the absolute disgrace that is the new route 40 in one sentence; " it's like back in the 1990s where buses were passing you by full"!

Saw 3 40s together on James' St last night - like a big long bendy bus... I got really nostalgic on the 13 this evening, reminded me of being crammed on a single decker 68A back in the ... 90s...

D.

BenShermin

dazberry wrote: »

Saw 3 40s together on James' St last night - like a big long bendy bus... I got really nostalgic on the 13 this evening, reminded me of being crammed on a single decker 68A back in the ... 90s...

D.

saw four 40s in a row on Coldcut Road during the week. Even back in the 78a days buses were bunching, the new 40 route is simply too long and bunching is even worse as a result.

I'm dreading the 27b/79 merger, Ballyfermot is going to be left with huge gaps in their bus service due to bus bunching. At least the 26 would have combatted that, but The pen pushers behind Notwork Destruct decided that it would be better if that bus were to carry thin air instead of fare paying customers.

kthnxbai

BenShermin wrote: »

After one week in operation my mother sumed up the absolute disgrace that is the new route 40 in one sentence; " it's like back in the 1990s where buses were passing you by full"!

I've lodged both an E-mail and a letter of complaint to Dublin Bus on how their new route 40 has treated my parents like **** over the last few days, good people who are fare paying passengers all their lives!!

I don't think that's particularly fair. The 40/a frequently passed people by because it was full.

Maybe this is happening in different places than it used to or something, but I haven't noticed the buses being any fuller. In fact, me and a lot of other customers now have a more frequent service. It's far from perfect, but it's hardly an absolute disgrace.

If anything, I'd sympathise with people who live in Finglas West who now have what I'd imagine is a longer journey to/from town. Or people in the South who want to take the bus to the village...

Edit: I can only speak for the Finglas end of the route... I assumed your parents used that end because you referred to it as the 40 ... But, if you were talking about the ballyfermot end, sorry...

nommm

Does anyone know what the story is with the 83? Several times I've waited over half an hour for it to come, only to have two 83's arrive at the same time. Seems a bit stupid to me.

kc56

nommm wrote: »

Does anyone know what the story is with the 83? Several times I've waited over half an hour for it to come, only to have two 83's arrive at the same time. Seems a bit stupid to me.

It is quite normal for this to happen especially in the morning rush hour. While the buses may leave the terminus on time, one bus can catch up with the previous one in heavy traffic. It is not unusual to have 30+ min gaps followed by several 10 ish gaps. Very annoying if you arrive at the beginning of the 30+ gap. It is rare enough to have two in tandem but it happens

But at least the RTPI and Smartphone apps tell you this and you can go for a different bus if there's one suitable.

robd

29a, 31's and 32's where moved from start termini on Eden Quay to Lower Abbey Street (where they used to be many moons ago).

29a got it's own stop 291. RPTI screen at stop has been crashed for most of the week.

31's and 32's have squeezed onto stop 289 with 42 and 32. This seems a farce to me as all of the services are busy on their own. Also confusing given 42 and 43 go up Malahide Road.

29a, 31's and 32's each had their own individual terminus stops in the 90's.
Would be preferable if the 3 where on the same stop rather than current situation given they all go up the Howth Road.

LXFlyer

Bear in mind there are going to be more changes in December and in the new year so it's quite likely that the Malahide Road routes may move to Eden Quay.

I would imagine that there will have to be a review of all the city centre stops when all the route changes have taken place.

nommm

kc56 wrote: »

It is quite normal for this to happen especially in the morning rush hour. While the buses may leave the terminus on time, one bus can catch up with the previous one in heavy traffic. It is not unusual to have 30+ min gaps followed by several 10 ish gaps. Very annoying if you arrive at the beginning of the 30+ gap. It is rare enough to have two in tandem but it happens

But at least the RTPI and Smartphone apps tell you this and you can go for a different bus if there's one suitable.

I'm not talking about 10 minute gaps tho. These are literally one behind the other. And it's not rare, it happening regualarly. I'm often walking the dog in the evening and I see it at least once or twice a week. And there is no other suitable bus. They've all been cut, unfortunately.

kc56

nommm wrote: »

I'm not talking about 10 minute gaps tho. These are literally one behind the other. And it's not rare, it happening regualarly. I'm often walking the dog in the evening and I see it at least once or twice a week. And there is no other suitable bus. They've all been cut, unfortunately.

I've seen 2 83's in tandem going the other way! Into town from the North.

The 19 is a loss as it was an option 10 mins away but now that's gone. The service provided by the 83 alone is definitely worse following the changes. The 83 Northside takes a longer route than before as it tries to be a 19 as well as an 83. So much for quicker, more frequent services!!

qerty

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/Travel-News/Changes-on-Routes-15-15a-15b-15e-15f-65-65b-74-74a-128-and-140/

Rabbitt

qerty wrote: »

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/Travel-News/Changes-on-Routes-15-15a-15b-15e-15f-65-65b-74-74a-128-and-140/

Bit of a massacre on the 65b. Think it's a tad harsh as it's a well used service. Taking it away from Tallaght Village is also strange.